- (1.)HEARD. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned award dated 24-11-1995 passed by the Labour Court (I)" U. P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 209 of 1992.
(2.)THE petitioner-workman was appointed on the post of Storekeeper-cum-purchaser in the establishment of respondent No. 2 in the year 1987. It is alleged by the workman that the employers became annoyed from him on account of his actively taking part in the union activities and has terminated the services of the workman vide order dated 11-3-1991. He raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation proceedings having failed the following matter of dispute was referred to the Labour Court (I) U. P. Kanpur, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 209 of 1992. case497.jpg
(3.)AFTER appreciation of oral and documentary evidence of the respective parties the Labour Court held that the employer has lost confidence in the workman and awarded compensation in place of reinstatement to the extent of eight times pay and allowance to the workman as he had worked only for four years. the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the duty of the petitioner was not related to financial department; that he was to verify the goods purchased and the bill was then forwarded to finance department; that the petitioner was not capable of doing any financial irregularities as the bill remains in the custody of cash department; that there was no report of theft as such it is a mystery how the bill came into the hands of the petitioner. He further submits that the cash book/account book showed that actual payment was not brought on record; that no person was produced from the cash department and payment to the third person was not proved; that the overwriting on bill by workman was also not proved, that after payment of bill, the cashier keeps the bill and voucher with him as such the payment cannot be made without bill, domestic enquiry having been set aside by the Court and the petitioner was discharged in criminal case. He also submits that no witness has stated that the petitioner has done the overwriting or double payment has been made at the behest of the petitioner; and that the basis of the order of the Labour Court that the services of the workman have rightly been terminated as the employer has lost confidence in the petitioner cannot be sustained. In this regard he has placed reliance upon the case of L. Michael and another v. M/s. Johnson Pumps Ltd. , 1975 (30) FLR 140 (SC) 1975 (1) SCC 574 and submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of servirce and full back-wages.